Extremist groups, social media...free speech?

[Coyote]

Not sure where the best place is to post this but given recent events, maybe Current Events is.

Since Charlottesville...multiple business' have been closing down sites (goDaddy, Facebook, Google, etc) associated with White Supremacists. Other financial organizations like PayPal have refused to do business with them. This seems to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Now...it isn't exactly new. They've been doing it against Islamic extremist organizations as well. But this is the first time it's been aimed at other groups.

Is this a good thing...?

On the one hand - they are private business' - they are under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything other than their own terms. They are under no legal obligation to serve all groups as long as they don't violate existing anti-discrimination laws. However - these corporate entities and their CEO's have a huge amount of power over the public, almost like monopolies.

Free speech is understood to be protected in that there shall be no government infringement on that right. Private entities are exempt I believe.

I'm kind of wondering if this is a good thing....or not? Thoughts?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not sure where the best place is to post this but given recent events, maybe Current Events is.

Since Charlottesville...multiple business' have been closing down sites (goDaddy, Facebook, Google, etc) associated with White Supremacists. Other financial organizations like PayPal have refused to do business with them. This seems to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Now...it isn't exactly new. They've been doing it against Islamic extremist organizations as well. But this is the first time it's been aimed at other groups.

Is this a good thing...?

On the one hand - they are private business' - they are under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything other than their own terms. They are under no legal obligation to serve all groups as long as they don't violate existing anti-discrimination laws. However - these corporate entities and their CEO's have a huge amount of power over the public, almost like monopolies.

Free speech is understood to be protected in that there shall be no government infringement on that right. Private entities are exempt I believe.

I'm kind of wondering if this is a good thing....or not? Thoughts?

Definitely NOT a good idea. If they are terrorists -- different story. They are loser idiots.

You don't have to host them. That's the perogative of any organization that doesn't want to be associated with them. But you can't refuse to issue them a domain name.

I don't think GoDaddy wants to start banning clients that folks find objectionable. THAT little expose would be more embarrassing to GoDaddy and Facebook than just neo-Nazi groups.

Forcing them to host themselves is gonna create an actual FOR PROFIT "Hate Industry".. That's the way this unwinds if it continues.

 

[Coyote]

Not sure where the best place is to post this but given recent events, maybe Current Events is.

Since Charlottesville...multiple business' have been closing down sites (goDaddy, Facebook, Google, etc) associated with White Supremacists. Other financial organizations like PayPal have refused to do business with them. This seems to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Now...it isn't exactly new. They've been doing it against Islamic extremist organizations as well. But this is the first time it's been aimed at other groups.

Is this a good thing...?

On the one hand - they are private business' - they are under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything other than their own terms. They are under no legal obligation to serve all groups as long as they don't violate existing anti-discrimination laws. However - these corporate entities and their CEO's have a huge amount of power over the public, almost like monopolies.

Free speech is understood to be protected in that there shall be no government infringement on that right. Private entities are exempt I believe.

I'm kind of wondering if this is a good thing....or not? Thoughts?

Definitely NOT a good idea. If they are terrorists -- different story. They are loser idiots.

You don't have to host them. That's the perogative of any organization that doesn't want to be associated with them. But you can't refuse to issue them a domain name.

I don't think GoDaddy wants to start banning clients that folks find objectionable. THAT little expose would be more embarrassing to GoDaddy and Facebook than just neo-Nazi groups.

Forcing them to host themselves is gonna create an actual FOR PROFIT "Hate Industry".. That's the way this unwinds if it continues.

I think we kind of have a huge grey area here....we've not had quite this situation before. And no - I'm not calling for forcing them to host.

I think it's a bit of a quandery though.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not sure where the best place is to post this but given recent events, maybe Current Events is.

Since Charlottesville...multiple business' have been closing down sites (goDaddy, Facebook, Google, etc) associated with White Supremacists. Other financial organizations like PayPal have refused to do business with them. This seems to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Now...it isn't exactly new. They've been doing it against Islamic extremist organizations as well. But this is the first time it's been aimed at other groups.

Is this a good thing...?

On the one hand - they are private business' - they are under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything other than their own terms. They are under no legal obligation to serve all groups as long as they don't violate existing anti-discrimination laws. However - these corporate entities and their CEO's have a huge amount of power over the public, almost like monopolies.

Free speech is understood to be protected in that there shall be no government infringement on that right. Private entities are exempt I believe.

I'm kind of wondering if this is a good thing....or not? Thoughts?

Dear Coyote: Since this type of volatile topic can require experienced moderators and historians used to speaking to both sides and staying objective, perhaps there should be special sites and forums designed to accommodate the free speech desired.

I wouldn't want just anyone talking online to terrorist groups like ISIS preaching violence.

There has to be experienced professionals who can determine who is exercising free speech and who poses a dangerous criminal threat, or the sites can't handle the legal liability.

There may need to be advanced screening to make sure mentally or criminally ill people receive assistance and aren't going to get triggered into violent "lone wolf" attacks.

I would not discourage free speech, but encourage specialists and experts in various fields to come up with a safe venue and model for accommodating such discussions and presentations.

So all participants stay safe, and nobody abuses the communication to conspire to violate any civil rights.

NOTE: One group I highly recommend to train facilitators to moderate forums in person so the dialogue stays in line, is the Center for the Healing of Racism. www.centerhealingracism.org

If you allow people to "speak for themselves only" instead of "representing whole groups" there is a way to foster respectful dialogue and prevent it from becoming shouting matches or attacks. If people can't handle that or aren't ready, then smaller groups would be needed first. But the dialogue and free speech should be encourage, but managed where it never erupts in violence or enables anyone to plan violence or criminal attacks on other people or groups.

It would have to be led by the groups themselves to protect their interests and not feel they are being hijacked or controlled in what they can say or believe. They just can't be planning criminal activity, or that's what is causing the conflicts with peaceful groups using the civil process.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

 

[Pogo]

Not sure where the best place is to post this but given recent events, maybe Current Events is.

Since Charlottesville...multiple business' have been closing down sites (goDaddy, Facebook, Google, etc) associated with White Supremacists. Other financial organizations like PayPal have refused to do business with them. This seems to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Now...it isn't exactly new. They've been doing it against Islamic extremist organizations as well. But this is the first time it's been aimed at other groups.

Is this a good thing...?

On the one hand - they are private business' - they are under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything other than their own terms. They are under no legal obligation to serve all groups as long as they don't violate existing anti-discrimination laws. However - these corporate entities and their CEO's have a huge amount of power over the public, almost like monopolies.

Free speech is understood to be protected in that there shall be no government infringement on that right. Private entities are exempt I believe.

I'm kind of wondering if this is a good thing....or not? Thoughts?

You are correct. "Under no legal obligation to support free speech in anything but their own terms" is perfectly phrased. As is this website.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Yeah, and it's not liberals, they are progressive democrats. The slime of this nation

 

[Coyote]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

These private business'?

 

[Pogo]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

When was that?

Without waiting for that answer, here's the problem with Rump and his denunciations or lack thereof....
--- No POTUS is required to denounce anything. Or to state the obvious. But Rump has a history extending to literally the first day of his campaign of being very specific about "Mexicans jumping walls" here, and "banning Muslims" there, and even "the judge is unfair because he's Mexican". Then suddenly in this case he pussyfoots to "many sides". That indicates a glaring omission.

O'bama hadn't a history of singling out ethnic groups or religions. In fact Rump criticized him specifically for not uttering the blanket-association fallacy "Islamic terrorism", and yet he himself failed to specify anything.

 

[Coyote]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Who is objecting to arguments against funding Muslim terrorist organizations?

 

[emilynghiem]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Yeah, and it's not liberals, they are progressive democrats. The slime of this nation

Well according to Pogo the agreed term is "leftists"
I'm a progressive Democrat and I put the Constitution first.
So I don't support party politics that pushes beliefs like a religion through govt.

I'm the denomination of progressive who believes in empowerment of citizens to work toward localized self government instead of giving up power and resources to the feds.
When all the other crap collapses, that's what we'll be left with anyway -- DIY.
The Greens and Libertarians agree on sustainable local economy and
even Conservative leaders AGREE on health care cooperatives (Sean Hannity) and microlending (Ben Carson) instead of govt handouts. So I call this progressive to work for reform through conservative principles. Otherwise if it excludes conservative beliefs, it isn't inclusion of diverity.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Yeah, and it's not liberals, they are progressive democrats. The slime of this nation

Well according to Pogo the agreed term is "leftists"
I'm a progressive Democrat and I put the Constitution first.
So I don't support party politics that pushes beliefs like a religion through govt.

I'm the denomination of progressive who believes in empowerment of citizens to work toward localized self government instead of giving up power and resources to the feds.
When all the other crap collapses, that's what we'll be left with anyway -- DIY.
The Greens and Libertarians agree on sustainable local economy and
even Conservative leaders AGREE on health care cooperatives (Sean Hannity) and microlending (Ben Carson) instead of govt handouts. So I call this progressive to work for reform through conservative principles. Otherwise if it excludes conservative beliefs, it isn't inclusion of diverity.

You post more like a true liberal. Sorry but if ai were you I wouldn't call myself a progressive. In my circle it will get you a sneer

 

[emilynghiem]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Who is objecting to arguments against funding Muslim terrorist organizations?

The argument is whether groups like CAIR count as enabling Muslim Terrorists
as many conservatives on the right argue.

Liberals are not going to issue "blanket" denouncement of ALL Muslims and Muslim groups
just because of Jihadists. The Muslims argue they aren't supporting that and shouldn't be punished for the crimes and terrorists of such groups they aren't responsible for.

But when it comes to Trump, suddenly he is expected to denounce ALL White Supremacist and Nationalist groups under a "blanket" generalization, regardless which ones did or did not have anything to do with violent or terrorist attacks.

People who may be law abiding, but believe in White Supremacy are now afraid to express their faith or beliefs freely; just like Muslims who are afraid to be called and targeted as terrorists.

If Muslims believe their way is superior to other groups, is that okay?
But not okay for Whites to believe their lineage is superior to others?
Or Jews?
The Blacks who believe in Black Power and taking down Whites, is that okay?

My mother believes Buddhism is the key way to truth, so if she discriminates against Christians as inferior is that to be denounced and banned by govt?

Where does it end?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Personally let the idiots speak as long as they are not calling for the overthrow of our government and supporting acts of terrorism.

If you silence them then where does it end?

Let'em speak because if you do not then more people will be drawn to their stupidity...

 

[Coyote]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Who is objecting to arguments against funding Muslim terrorist organizations?

The argument is whether groups like CAIR count as enabling Muslim Terrorists
as many conservatives on the right argue.

Liberals are not going to issue "blanket" denouncement of ALL Muslims and Muslim groups
just because of Jihadists. The Muslims argue they aren't supporting that and shouldn't be punished for the crimes and terrorists of such groups they aren't responsible for.

But when it comes to Trump, suddenly he is expected to denounce ALL White Supremacist and Nationalist groups under a "blanket" generalization, regardless which ones did or did not have anything to do with violent or terrorist attacks.

People who may be law abiding, but believe in White Supremacy are now afraid to express their faith or beliefs freely; just like Muslims who are afraid to be called and targeted as terrorists.

If Muslims believe their way is superior to other groups, is that okay?
But not okay for Whites to believe their lineage is superior to others?
Or Jews?
The Blacks who believe in Black Power and taking down Whites, is that okay?

My mother believes Buddhism is the key way to truth, so if she discriminates against Christians as inferior is that to be denounced and banned by govt?

Where does it end?

When it came to Obama, he was expected to denounce all black rights groups whenever someone killed a cop.

Guess it's the same. But why couldn't Trump and Pence have given as strong a statement for an act of terrorism, that occurred on our own soil and killed one of our people....as he did for Barcelona?

 

[Pogo]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Yeah, and it's not liberals, they are progressive democrats. The slime of this nation

Well according to Pogo the agreed term is "leftists"
I'm a progressive Democrat and I put the Constitution first.
So I don't support party politics that pushes beliefs like a religion through govt.

I'm the denomination of progressive who believes in empowerment of citizens to work toward localized self government instead of giving up power and resources to the feds.
When all the other crap collapses, that's what we'll be left with anyway -- DIY.
The Greens and Libertarians agree on sustainable local economy and
even Conservative leaders AGREE on health care cooperatives (Sean Hannity) and microlending (Ben Carson) instead of govt handouts. So I call this progressive to work for reform through conservative principles. Otherwise if it excludes conservative beliefs, it isn't inclusion of diverity.

You post more like a true liberal. Sorry but if ai were you I wouldn't call myself a progressive. In my circle it will get you a sneer

Perhaps you need to elevate your circles.

 

[MaryL]

If we defend Muslims that crash planes into buildings and these same people slam a lorry on London bridge on pedestrians, do the same in Barcelona and now, but we attack a single white guy that does the same thing in Charlotte and make it a clarion call against evil, have we lost our collective minds?

 

[Pogo]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Who is objecting to arguments against funding Muslim terrorist organizations?

The argument is whether groups like CAIR count as enabling Muslim Terrorists
as many conservatives on the right argue.

Liberals are not going to issue "blanket" denouncement of ALL Muslims and Muslim groups
just because of Jihadists. The Muslims argue they aren't supporting that and shouldn't be punished for the crimes and terrorists of such groups they aren't responsible for.

But when it comes to Trump, suddenly he is expected to denounce ALL White Supremacist and Nationalist groups under a "blanket" generalization, regardless which ones did or did not have anything to do with violent or terrorist attacks.

People who may be law abiding, but believe in White Supremacy are now afraid to express their faith or beliefs freely; just like Muslims who are afraid to be called and targeted as terrorists.

If Muslims believe their way is superior to other groups, is that okay?
But not okay for Whites to believe their lineage is superior to others?
Or Jews?
The Blacks who believe in Black Power and taking down Whites, is that okay?

My mother believes Buddhism is the key way to truth, so if she discriminates against Christians as inferior is that to be denounced and banned by govt?

Where does it end?

When it came to Obama, he was expected to denounce all black rights groups whenever someone killed a cop.

Guess it's the same. But why couldn't Trump and Pence have given as strong a statement for an act of terrorism, that occurred on our own soil and killed one of our people....as he did for Barcelona?

Or .... Orlando?

 

[emilynghiem]

Gee, in 1930s Germany certain people were not allowed to own businesses or have bank accounts.

Remind me who is acting like Nazis again.

Dear SassyIrishLass what's curious to me is the same liberal left would object to arguments against funding Muslim organizations that the right deems to be enabling hate and terrorist groups.

Now when the table is turned, suddenly it's demanded of Trump to denounce and disown.
But not so when Obama was accused of enabling and refusing to denounce terrorism on the left?

Who is objecting to arguments against funding Muslim terrorist organizations?

The argument is whether groups like CAIR count as enabling Muslim Terrorists
as many conservatives on the right argue.

Liberals are not going to issue "blanket" denouncement of ALL Muslims and Muslim groups
just because of Jihadists. The Muslims argue they aren't supporting that and shouldn't be punished for the crimes and terrorists of such groups they aren't responsible for.

But when it comes to Trump, suddenly he is expected to denounce ALL White Supremacist and Nationalist groups under a "blanket" generalization, regardless which ones did or did not have anything to do with violent or terrorist attacks.

People who may be law abiding, but believe in White Supremacy are now afraid to express their faith or beliefs freely; just like Muslims who are afraid to be called and targeted as terrorists.

If Muslims believe their way is superior to other groups, is that okay?
But not okay for Whites to believe their lineage is superior to others?
Or Jews?
The Blacks who believe in Black Power and taking down Whites, is that okay?

My mother believes Buddhism is the key way to truth, so if she discriminates against Christians as inferior is that to be denounced and banned by govt?

Where does it end?

When it came to Obama, he was expected to denounce all black rights groups whenever someone killed a cop.

Guess it's the same. But why couldn't Trump and Pence have given as strong a statement for an act of terrorism, that occurred on our own soil and killed one of our people....as he did for Barcelona?

From what I understand, the attack in Barcelona and similar attacks in France are Jihadi attacks on Western Civilization and nations as a whole. So all free nations are a target, and the issue is for all such nations to denounce this and join together to get rid of terrorism worldwide wherever attacks occur.

With the violent terrorist attack of protesters, this was a mixed context where it was not yet determined which group(s) planned or committed which attacks. All participants were Americans on both sides ie the two groups the police failed to keep separated. So until more information can be confirmed, Trump denounced any violence on all sides that were involved.

If you want to point to that as hypocritical and biased, I would compare to denouncing Israeli-Palestinian clashes as always the fault of the Palestinians
or always the fault of the Jews instead of blaming all sides that contribute to violence, regardless which groups they were.

The same way Palestinian sympathizers blame Jewish for oppression that incites the terrorism in the first place, both sides here blame the other for inciting attacks.

so if Trump was slow in placing blame and denouncing particular groups, shouldn't he be just as fair in denouncing violence on "all sides" of the Jewish Palestinian conflicts, war and terrorism.

NOTE: Coyote What I really find disturbing with this denouncement of terrorism politics, is Obama was not criticized as Trump is, when it came to the Ft. Hood Shooting. in that case, a clear Sympathizer with the Islamic interests shot and killed 13 unarmed military service people, shouting Allah Akbar, and Obama classified that as "workplace violence" instead of a terrorist attack by which the families and survivors would have received better compensation and benefits.

Why criticize Trump so much when Obama would not even call THAT terrorism?

I think THAT incident might come closer to the level of the Barcelona attack.

What I might compare this protest to is the "peaceful protest" of BLM in Dallas.
And at the very end, an unrelated shooter claiming to be motivated by the BLM protest
shot and killed 5 police officers deliberately targeted.

so Coyote if that wasn't called a "terrorist" attack when 5 people ie POLICE OFFICERS were killed by a shooter, to make a TERRORIST media statement against police and law enforcement; and nobody blamed Obama for calling it a "despicable attack"
Obama condemns 'despicable' shootings of Dallas police officers
Why are people jumping up and down whether Trump calls this terrorist
or blames the White Supremacist groups for the murder committed by one person?

Obama didn't call out BLM as a terrorist group for inciting that attack.
People demanded it, but he never did.

So shouldn't people APPLAUD Trump for doing MORE than Obama did?
At least he responded to such demands. Obama did not.